Is this enclosure being used as a raceway?

[George Stolz]

Jim,

Ah, my! What it must be like to bask in the rarified glow of His Countenance.

Come one, come all, see this amazing wonder! This pale, scrawny creature once amazed you with his knowledge of the grill, fries and register at Wendy's! He once dazzled you with his newspaper stacking ability! Now, watch as he fails miserably at installing temp power at a crackhouse!!!

 

[hillbilly]

Ryan...The point that I was trying to make is...If the POCO can't turn the power off to a panel by pulling the meter, and energized service cables in the the panel are still accessible to John Q Public, the panel is still hot (IMHO). If I was a inspector, (which I'm not), I might let it pass on a temporary, but on a permanent service, no way. I can imagine someone who's power has been turned off trying to strip the insulation from the service cables and jumpering back to the BP. All of this while working hot. This could be done (if they didn't get fried) and they would have their power back on. I know some people who might try this. I'm aware that the same thing can (and does) happen by cutting the meter seal on a typical installation, but it would be more obvious to the POCO, again (IMHO). I know some late (or no) payers that have had hardened padlocks installed on their meter can (by the POCO) because they had cut the seal and jumpered. I know that it's illegal, but some folks will do just about anything to get their power back on.
steve.

 

[George Stolz]

Are you talking about the LV L&P's book? I was waiting to get a current copy until July, they've got a revise on the way. For now, I have a green book, which is a couple years out of date. If this is in the POCO's regulations as their own rule, I have to abide by it. And given the peculiar relationship the Building Department and the L&P share, the inspectors are beholden to enforce it. So, on the "local rules" aspect of this, I am now informed.

I just noticed the standard is located online, it seems like I'd looked for it and not found it before.

I so need to get a PDA for all the local documents I'm getting...

 

[George Stolz]

So, I've come to the conclusion that, legally speaking, in this particular jurisdiction, the temp is illegal. Since the POCO is in the same organization as the building department, then the inspectors also have the responsibility of enforcing the POCO guidelines, which have been adopted into law by the city council.

I'm also of the conclusion that this local rule has been built on a false premise of being "based on the NEC, 230.7." It seems to me this rule is to limit the damage imposed on the property in the event of a fault. The NEC's scope includes protection of property. This seems like a reasonable measure to keep the costs down of repair in the event of a service conductor fault. Sure, your service conductors are toast, but at least the branch circuit wiring has been spared from the heat generated from the event.

In this case, we're dealing with a temp power pole. I am curious as to why this is appears to be considered (by those who have adopted it into law) as a safety issue, not a theft-of-power issue. No one is going to be living in the temp. The temp is not attached to a structure of any value. That leaves the motivation as protection of the temp itself from the power company, IMO.

I don't understand how a service conductor fault occuring in the lower portion of the can is any less or more hazardous than it occuring in the top of the can. It is going to be catastrophic for the equipment in any case. Who cares where the hole gets blown in the can in the event of a fault?

So, if the equipment is FUBAR in either scenario, that leaves the issue of injury to personnel from the conductor routing.

Injury to personnel is a non-issue, IMO, because anyone digging into a temp while energized would be exposed to lethal shock, whether they were playing with the service conductors or the branch circuit conductors. They are both non-GFCI-protected, 120V line-to-ground sources. They will all kill equally. A circuit breaker is not going to help a soul.

In fact, given the insulation of USE versus THHN, it's far more likely that someone monkeying around in the panelboard area is going to be killed from a branch-circuit insulation failure, not a service conductor insulation failure.

So, what gives? Keep it clean, I'm thinking about inviting the inspector who brought this to my attention into the debate. Maybe. I've dug my own grave that way in the past.

 

[George Stolz]

I can imagine someone who's power has been turned off trying to strip the insulation from the service cables and jumpering back to the BP. All of this while working hot. This could be done (if they didn't get fried) and they would have their power back on. I know some people who might try this.

Steve, I have no sympathy for people who would in their ignorance risk their lives to steal electricity. The point at which they would steal their power is of no relevance. A POCO meter seal is easily defeated undetected.

Given the fact that this is a temp pole, and not a permanent residence, the likelyhood of someone stealing power is very low. Who profits? The cost of electricity is very low compared to the other costs of the project.

Look at it this way. Do you believe the NEC should be written to protect people who are stealing power? Do you believe that to be a normal use of equipment? Not trying to pick on you, just addressing the idea.

 

[hillbilly]

George...No and NO.
But it's a fact, it does happen.
steve

 

[George Stolz]

People get gunned down robbing liquor stores, that doesn't mean we should put someone at the door with kevlar jackets, just in case.

 

[iwire]

First let me make clear I agree with Ryan and the others who see this and let is pass.

IMO this is just another area of the NEC where some commonsense must be exercised.


However....I am not so sure that the actual words of the NEC do not prohibit this installation.

Not that it's going to take anyone by surprise, but here is my opinion: 230.7 does not apply to this installation.

I have to ask why? (Other than the commonsense aspect)

The entire enclosure is listed as service equipment, so I cannot see how installing service conductors into this single service enclosure can possibly violate the NEC (which all but disregards that meters exist anyway).

Regardless of the fact it is 'listed as service equipment' it is IMO also a raceway.

Raceway. An enclosed channel of metal or nonmetallic materials designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or busbars, with additional functions as permitted in this Code. Raceways include, but are not limited to, rigid metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, intermediate metal conduit, liquidtight flexible conduit, flexible metallic tubing, flexible metal conduit, electrical nonmetallic tubing, electrical metallic tubing, underfloor raceways, cellular concrete floor raceways, cellular metal floor raceways, surface raceways, wireways, and busways.

As Ryan mentioned all service panels have both service conductors and 'not' service conductors contained in them.

I think George's inspector has lost his commonsense.

 

[bikeindy]

My reason for this not passing is that here in Indy the POCO uses 230.7 as their justification to not allow a meter to be installed with this setup, but I believe their concern is not that there are BC's in the enclosure with the service conductors but that there are "unmetered service conductors" in the enclosure. They will not allow you to do this, you must take utility service conductors dirctly to the meter section of an enclosure like this.

 

[George Stolz]

However....I am not so sure that the actual words of the NEC do not prohibit this installation.

Regardless of the fact it is 'listed as service equipment' it is IMO also a raceway.

Raceway. An enclosed channel of metal or nonmetallic materials designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or busbars, with additional functions as permitted in this Code.

It's true, items not in the Raceway definition's list can be used as a raceway. We have rules governing such things:

312.8 Enclosures for Switches or Overcurrent Devices. Enclosures for switches or overcurrent devices shall not be used as junction boxes, auxiliary gutters, or raceways for conductors feeding through or tapping off to other switches or overcurrent devices, unless adequate space for this purpose is provided...

300.14(J)...where a luminaire (fixture) is used as a raceway...

410.31 Luminaires (Fixtures) as Raceways. Luminaires (fixtures) shall not be used as a raceway for circuit conductors unless listed and marked for use as a raceway.

What do these sections have in common? What's the tie that binds them together? These enclosures are being used as a path to get somewhere else. A feed-through panelboard is used to get to the second panelboard. A luminaire used as a raceway is used to get to another luminaire. It's the fundamental qualifier of "using it as a raceway."

The power outlet does not share this attribute: it is the last stop for the service conductors. The principle of using 230.7 to ban this installation is invalid because the meter and the panelboard are all components of one object: the power outlet.

Trying to cite 230.7 to fail this installation is calling the power outlet two different enclosures. It doesn't measure up; a power outlet can contain a watt-hour meter. It's listed as a Power Outlet, not as a meter enclosure and a panelboard.

I think George's inspector has lost his commonsense.

I wouldn't say that. The inspectors have to enforce the rule (Loveland's Construction Standard 2.4.a) as written. But I believe the power company is citing the wrong reason for doing so. It's not because it's required by the NEC, it's because they are trying to prevent tampering with their conductors. But I seriously doubt someone is going to strip them and solder on a unmetered branch circuit to save the GC some money on the bill. It's preposterous, IMO.

 

[iwire]

Never mind, I have nothing constructive to say.

 

[George Stolz]

Regardless of the fact it is 'listed as service equipment' it is IMO also a raceway.

I have simmered down and am now ready to listen. Could you elaborate?

I was discussing this at work with my co-worker, he fully agrees with the members here that believe it is a safer installation without the service conductors travelling through the temp. In his opinion, this section also serves to minimize customer contact with undisconnectable service conductors.

In the case of a metermain with a guard on it to one side for the lateral, he considers this a raceway, not a "tamper-guard" as I view it. Bikeindy seems to agree with the "tamper-proofing" angle.

I might let it pass on a temporary, but on a permanent service, no way.

He too agreed with this principle.

Sorry for being a mule, I'm now genuinely interested to listen. I've pitched in my $5 worth. (I kinda went $4.98 over, somehow.)

 

[radiopet]

Interesting enough.....has anyone read what Mike Holt says on the issue in his comments about Section 230.7

" Authors Comment: This rule does not prohibit the mixing of service, feeder, and branch-circuit conductors in the same " service equipment enclosure"

I think 230.7 applies to when the raceway is the conduit, gutter and so on and you have feeders and branch-circuits that leave from the main panels possibly BACK up into the gutter AFTER the fact.....this would be the intent of the violation of 230.7